Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/369/2012

MOHAMED BASHEER AHAMED - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI BANK LIMITED, AUTHORISED OFFICER - Opp.Party(s)

V. BALAJI

01 Apr 2015

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CHENNAI

BEFORE :  THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI                           PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                     TMT.P.BAKIYAVATHI                                MEMBER                                                                                  

F.A.NO.369/2012

(Against the order in CC.No.238/2011, dated 09.04.2012 on the file of DCDRF, Coimbatore)

DATED THIS THE 1^st DAY OF APRIL 2015

Mohameduness Basheer Ahamed,

No. L 449, TNHB Colony,

Nethaji Puram,                                                         M/s.V.Balaji

Neelikonampalayam,                                    Counsel for Appellant / complainant

Coimbatore 641 033.

                                Vs-

1. ICICI Bank Ltd,

    Rep by Authorised Officer,

    1019, Cheran Plaza,                                             M/s.ANS Law Associates

    Trichy Road,                                            Counsel for Respondents /Opp.parties

    Coimbatore 641 018.

2. ICICI Bank Ltd,

    Rep.by Authorised Officer,

    Head Office : Land Mark,

    Race Course Circle,

    Vadodra 390 007.

3. ICICI Bank Ltd,

    Rep.by authorized Officer,

    ICICI Bank Tower, 7^th Floor,

    SF No.115/27, Plot No.12,

    Nanakramgunda,

    Serilingampally,

    Hydrabad 500 032.

4. ICICI Bank Ltd,

    Rep.by Authorised Officer,

    CMR Department, 24, Third Floor,

    Ambattur Industrial Estate,

    Ambattur, Chennai 600 058.

          The appellant is the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying certain relief.  The District Forum dismissed the complaint.  Against the said order, the appellant / complainant filed this appeal praying for to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.238/2011, dated 09.04.2012.     

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 24.03.2015, upon hearing the arguments on both sides, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order.

A.K.ANNAMALAI,  PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

          The complainant is the appellant.

2.       The complainant having bank account and credit card transaction and ATM facilities with the 1^st opposite party had availed a loan of Rs.36,000/- for the purchase of Mobile phone for Rs.30,000/- on 5.10.2007 and withdrawn a cash of Rs.6000/- on 6.10.2007 under the credit card loan scheme for which he was paying monthly interest at the rate of Rs.1000/- and from November 2007 to October 2010 he had paid Rs.38,958/- within the due dates on 16.10.2010 he dropped a cheque for Rs.1000/- at the ICICI ATM, Singanallur Branch and on 28.10.2010 since it was informed that the amount was not received, he issued another cheque on 29.10.10 and on 30.10.2010 he received SMS intimation for the encashment of both cheques and since the second cheque was issued as an alternative cheque for October 2010 requested to adjust the same for the month of November which was not considered by the opposite party.  On 6.12.2010 he was asked to pay Rs.24,896.34 being the balance amount and Rs.2000/- as fine amount and also rowdy elements were sent for collection and thereby a legal notice was issued on 25.1.2011 and subsequently the complainant came to know that his salary of Rs.14,322/- was also frozen for the nonpayment   of alleged  demand for  Rs.21,000/-  towards  due  and  thereby alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice the complainant has filed a consumer complaint claiming compensation for Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony and for costs.

3.       The opposite party denied the allegations contended that the complainant is a chronic defaulter having purchased mobile cell for Rs.30,000/- and withdrawn cash for Rs.6,000/- during the year 2007 and admitted till 2010 he had paid only Rs.38,958/- which would shows that he is the defaulter and by exercising lien for the dues the amount was frozen after giving proper notice.

4.       The District Forum after an enquiry on the basis of both sides materials accepting the contentions of the opposite parties dismissed the complaint.

5.       Aggrieved by the impugned order the complainant filed this appeal contended that the District Forum not at all considered the contentions and materials of the complainant and the bank has credited October and November 2010 dues twice and also illegally freezed the account  of the complainant and thereby the appeal is to be allowed.

6.       Per contra, the respondents / opposite parties relied upon the documents Ex.B1 to B3 containing the terms and conditions for using the credit card and ATM card and availing the facilities and intimation sent to the complainant regarding the exercise of lien and also statement of accounts for the credit card used by the complainant.

7.       We have heard both sides arguments and perused the materials in this regard.  The only grievance of the complainant is that his account and the amount in his account were freezed by the opposite parties without any authority and thereby the amount paid towards interest at the rate of Rs.1000/- for the month of October 2010 twice was not given credit for the subsequent month, but was given credit only in the month of October 2010 itself and thereby there was default in payment was caused.  These contentions cannot be accepted when the opposite parties alleged that he is a chronic defaulter in paying the dues under the facilities of credit card for which Ex.B1 and terms and conditions were exhibited which was not denied.  Under Ex.B2 the opposite parties sent the communication informing the right of the opposite parties in exercising the lien by stating that there was an outstanding amount of Rs.27,702.82 requesting to pay the same within 7 days from the date of letter dated 22.2.2011 and mentioning the provision for their right exercised in lien which is stated as follows :

          “ In addition to the general right to set off or other right conferred by law or under any other agreement, ICICI Bank may, without notice, combine or consolidate the standing balance on the Card Account with any other account (s) which the Card-Member maintains with ICICI Bank and its Group Companies, and set-off or transfer money standing to the credit of such other account(s) in or towards the satisfaction of the Card-Member’s liability to ICICI Bank under his / her Card Account.”

Further under document Ex.A19 itself received by the complainant from the opposite party the same details were pointed out and also under Ex.B2 demanding the payment of  Rs.27,707.82  payable on 22.02.2011 and  thereby it  is clear  that the complainant was chronic defaulter in payment though the complainant alleged that he was regularly paying the amount of interest alone at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month and the statement of both  sides did not reflect the same and as per the statement of account Ex.B3 series it is clear that as on 5.12.2011 the complainant liable to pay a sum of Rs.14028.01 towards usage of credit card and as on 7.11.2011 under Ex.A1 credit card statement the total amount due payable by the complainant was shown as Rs.37,957.45 as against the credit of Rs.36,000/- availed during the year 2007 by purchasing mobile phone and withdrawal of cash.  The Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the case reported in 1995 (3) CPR 1 (NC) in the case of Mike’s (P) Ltd –vs- State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur in which it is pointed out the observation  as follows :  

          “It has already been discussed above that on 5^th October, 1988 nothing stood in way of the bank while granting advances.  After the arrest of Mr.Varma on that date the Bank started finding faults with the complainant and freezed the credit facilities without giving any notice.  In the circumstances discussed above we have no option but to hold that the action of the Bank in freezing the credit facilities was malafide.  The Bank must be held guilty of negligence and deficient in rendering banking service.” (para-15)

          “The opposite party Bank had dishonoured two cheques of the complainant for Rs.45,000/- issued on 30.9.1998 and Rs.57,000/- issued on 26.10.1988 without reason or justification when the sanctioned credit limits had not been revoked or exhausted and he could withdraw Rs.1.24 lakhs from the Bank in between.  The Bank was therefore guilty of deficiency in service.”(Para-17)

While considering the facts and circumstances of the case in our hand the ruling relied upon by the counsel for the appellant as no relevancy and not helpful to the appellant since the opposite party has already intimated about the exercise of lien.  In those circumstances the complainant instead of approaching the bank to set right the dispute relating to the account details for selling either for excess collection amount in credit or in shortage etc simply because the bank exercised lien approached the consumer forum having come forward without clean hand cannot be considered as bonafide one.  In those circumstances on perusal of the District Forum order and other materials we find no merits in this appeal which is liable to be dismissed and thereby the appeal is dismissed.

          In the result, the appeal is dismissed in confirming the order of the District Forum in CC.No.238/2011, dated 09.04.2012.  No order as to costs in the appeal.

 

P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                    A.K.ANNAMALAI

     MEMBER                                                         PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

INDEX; YES/NO

VL/D;/PJM/BANK